Achieve True Election Law Reform

Do you believe in majority rule?  

         There are some who would insist that majority rule is mob rule. (The other option is minority rule, and those same people would insist that that is tyranny!) There is nothing wrong with majority rule, as long as it is limited to what the majority should rule. Our problem is that we have not seen true majority rule in most cases for a very long time. In many cases a majority of those who are of voting age don't vote at all for varying reasons.  What we have is rule by the largest active and organized minority.  (All the other minorities, good or bad, would like to replace them, so they don't want to change the system that puts in power the minority that they oppose!)

         George Washington, rightly called the father of our country, warned us of the perils of unbridled partisan spirit.  We ignored him to our hurt. The election system has evolved into a horrible monster that promotes the affirmation of  the lesser (but ever increasing) evil, fragments the electorate, and produces in most cases what the majority doesn't want.

         What we need is a way to develop a consensus. (If there is no consensus there should be no law or office holder.) There is a solution to this -- the YES! Initiative.  I suggest you take a serious look at it!

Do you believe in representative government?

         Here in the West it is hard to fathom a small state (geographically speaking) like Rhode Island having two US Senators and more than one Representative in Congress.  It has less land area (1214 sq miles) than Josephine County, but population-wise it has about half the number of people as the State of Oregon.

         Under the original formula for congressional representation, with a representative for each 30,000 citizens,  Josephine County would have two US Congressmen in Washington DC. How would you like that.  (I know:  there would be a lot of Representatives back there.)  It would take a lot of doing for someone to make a deal for enough votes to get his meritless project approved when there were over 8000 members of Congress assembled. I think we would have a lot more responsive congressman from each of the districts in Josephine County, don't you?

         Remember, having representative government is not electing someone and letting them tell you what to do, it is electing someone and telling them what to do!  You cannot have representative government when the district is so large that the Representative doesn't know his constituents.   If you take that principle and apply it close to home, you will realize that having County Commissioners elected by districts in the county gives far more representation than having them all elected at large -- regardless of the residence requirements for a given Commissioner position.  I have drafted a sample county charter for Josephine County that incorporates this principle.

Do you believe in limited government?

         There are two ways to limit government. You can say to your public servants, "Do everything you want except these particular things."  You can also say, "Do only the things I have told you specifically to do."  Both of these are limited government, but one is far different than the other.  Our federal union was to be the latter, but Josephine County has a charter that currently is the former -- it gives your public servants a blank check; read it for your self!  If you give your public servants a blank check and you then attempt to create specific restrictions on their powers, you will find that they can do what they please some other way!  I have proposed a revision that is awaiting ballot title before signature gathering can take place.

         It is time to enforce the limited-government Constitution that our forefathers adopted.  (We can only do that if we hold our representatives accountable for how they vote when we vote.)  We must also revise our County Charter to change the type of limitation philosophy it is based on.

Do you believe in term limits?

         Term limits have been around for a long time and the office to which it has been applied the longest is the Presidency.  The results are quite enlightening, if you evaluate those who have served since F.D.R. and what they have done in their final terms when they are "lame ducks". The only effective way to "clean house" is to selectively limit the terms of individual officeholders by voting them out without putting some one else equally bad in their place.

Do you believe in campaign finance reform?

         There is a notion that if none of the candidates has very much money to spend that we will somehow have a more informed electorate when the votes are cast, and less corruption on the part of those who are actually elected.  I'm here to tell you that people vote for the devil they know, not the "devil" they don't know!  Even if funding were equal, incumbents will almost always triumph for a number of reasons, varying with the particular office being contested.  (If there is even a challenger, that is!)  What we need is full disclosure of campaign funding sources, not limits on how much is contributed, and we have had that for quite sometime.